-- FLORIDA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Watters, 1987a, 1987b, 1987c) has remedied from the figures that only the upper east the situation, and the rule needs to be coast is significantly affected by the SHW, reassessed. Following is an alternative for attesting to the low impact figure of Curtis consideration. and others (1985).
BEACH-COAST NICKPOINT ELEVATION BOUNDARY OF PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
In reality, Seasonal High Water is a
misnomer. First, the components necessary The boundary between private (i.e., for computation are metonically derived (i.e., upland) and public (i.e., seaward) beach 19-year averages). Second, the results have ownership is normally fixed by some not been demonstrated to represent seasonal commonly applied tidal datum, For most of variation in astronomical tide behavior, the U. S. this boundary is determined by the Third, it has been demonstrated that upon plane of MHW which when it intersects the application, only about 13% to 15% of beach or coast forms the line of mean high undeveloped beach property in Florida would water. However, unlike other riparian be affected by the SHW application (Curtis ownership determinations (i.e., fluvial, and others, 1985). lacustrine and estuarine), littoral properties must, in addition, contend with significant An alternative consideration for such wave activity that seasonally varies. Hence, an application, and others, is the ocean-fronting beaches all too often beach/coast nickpoint elevation. The experience cyclic seasonal width changes of nickpoint represents the point where the a magnitude long recognized as problematic beach intersects the coast, normally in affixing an equitable boundary (Nunez, identified as the base of a dune or bluff. 1966; Johnson, 1971; O'Brien, 1982; Generation and maintenance of the nickpoint Graber and Thompson, 1985; Collins and is primarily a function of direct extreme McGrath, 1989). event impact. These
elevations for Florida are
probabilistically -co.. |- each near.ore investigated; the results
are plotted in Figure 10. N* Median (i.e., 50th 
percentile) nickpoint usL elevations, N., for Florida or Mu
are as follows: 1) East
Coast: +7.15 feet NGVD ZNo -42+5.9 (1929), 2) Lower Gulf 10 EAST-COAST Coast: +5.65 feet NGVD t
(1929), and 3) Panhandle 0 .
Gulf Coast: +6.45 feet 10 LOWER GULF COAST 3.7+ NGVD (1929). . .
0 
The relationship 0 N* -4.3 + 4.3 P
between nickpoint 110 PANHANDLE GULF COAST 
betee n 10aelevations and SHW A k elevations for Florida is 0 1 0!2 0.3 0. 4 0.5s 0.S 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 illustrated in Figures 11, Exc dnce Prob ty. P 12, and 13. It is apparent Figure 10. Beach/coast nickpoint elevations for Florida.
50